Search:

More info on Militarism

Militarism: Map

Wikipedia article:

Map showing all locations mentioned on Wikipedia article:

Militarism is the belief or desire of a government or people that a
country should maintain a strong military capability and be
prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national
interests. It has also been defined as "aggressiveness that
involves the threat of using military force", and the Glorification
of the ideas of a professional military class" and "Predominance of
the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state

By nation

Germany

The roots
of German militarism can be found in the years past of Prussia
during the nineteenth century, and the subsequent unification of
Germany under Prussian leadership. After Napoleon conquered Prussia,
early in the nineteenth century, one of the conditions of peace was
that Prussia should reduce her army to no more than forty-two
thousand men. In order that the country should not again be so
easily conquered, the king of Prussia
enrolled the permitted number of men for one year, then dismissed
that group, and enrolled another of the same size, and so on. Thus,
in the course of ten years, it would be possible for him to gather
an army of four hundred thousand men who had had at least one year
of military training. The officers of the army were drawn almost
entirely from among the land-owning nobility. The result was that there was gradually
built up a large class of professional officers on the one hand,
and, on the other, a much larger class, the rank and file of the
army. These enlisted men had become conditioned to obey implicitly
all the commands of the officers, creating a class-based culture of deference.

This system led to several consequences. Since the officer class
also furnished most of the officials for the civil administration
of the country, the interests of the army came to be considered the
same as the interests of the country as a whole. A second result
was that the governing class desired to continue a system which
gave them so much power over the common people, contributing to the
continuing influence of the Junker noble
classes.

Militarism in Germany continued after World
War I and the fall of the German monarchy. During the period of the Weimar Republic (1919-1933), the Kapp
Putsch, an attempted coup against the republican government,
was launched by disaffected members of the armed forces.
After this, some of the more radical militarists and nationalists
were subsumed into the Nazi Party, while
more moderate elements of militarism declined. Nazi Germany was a strongly militarist state;
after its fall in 1945, militarism in German culture was
dramatically reduced, as a backlash against the Nazi period.

Japan

In parallel with 20th century Germany's militarism, Japanese
militarism began with a series of events by which the military
gained prominence in dictating Japan's affairs. This was evident in
15th century Japan's Sengoku Period or Age of Warring
States where powerful samurai warlords or shogun played a
significant role in Japanese politics. Japan's militarism is deeply
rooted in the ancient samurai tradition, centuries before Japan's
modernization.

Even though a militarist philosophy was intrinsic to the
shogunates, a nationalist style of militarism came in under the
Meiji Restoration. It is
exemplified by the 1882 Imperial Rescript to
Soldiers and Sailors. Still, there was a distinct change,
roughly in the 1920s, from two main factors. One was the Cabinet
Law that required the Army and Navy to name serving officers as
Army and Navy Minister before a cabinet could be formed,
essentially giving the military a veto over any cabinet in the
ostensibly parliamentary country. Another factor was
gekokujo, or institutionalized disobedience by junior
officers. It was not uncommon for radical junior officers to press
for their goals, to the extent of assassinating seniors.

Centuries of civil wars have brought about rigid military rule and
secured a place for the military in government affairs only to last
until Japan's unconditional surrender in World War II after the
United States brought about democracy to the once militaristic
state. With this dictatorial power, Japan invaded the Republic of China in 1931 and overtook eastern region of China within
11 years, and finally spread World War
II to the Pacific with their
attack on
Pearl Harbor.

United States

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries political and
military leaders reformed the US federal government to establish a
stronger central government than had ever previously existed for
the purpose of enabling the nation to pursue an imperial policy in
the Pacific and in the Caribbean and economic militarism to support the
development of the new industrial economy. This reform was the
result of a conflict between Neo-Hamiltonian Republicans and
Jeffersonian-Jacksonian advocates over the proper
administration of the state and direction of its foreign policy.
The conflict pitted proponents of professionalism, based on
business management principles, against proponents favoring more
local control in the hands of laymen and political
appointees.

After the end of the American Civil
War the national army fell into disrepair. Reforms based on
various European states including Imperial Britain, Imperial
Germany, and Switzerland were made so that it would become
responsive to control from the central government, prepared for
future conflicts, and develop refined command and support
structures; it led to the development of professional military
thinkers and cadre.

During this time the intellectual ideas of Social Darwinism propelled the development
of an American Empire in the Pacific
and Caribbean. This required modifications for a more efficient
central government due to the added administration
requirements.

The
enlargement of the US army for the Spanish-American War was considered
essential to the occupation and control of the new territories
acquired from Spain in its defeat (Guam, the
Philippines, Puerto Rico, and
Cuba). The previous limit by legislation of 24
000 men was expanded to 60 000 regulars in the new army bill on 2
February 1901, with allowance at that time for expansion to 80 000
regulars by presidential discretion at times of national
emergency.

Again, US forces were enlarged immensely for World War I. Officers such as George S.Patton were permanent captains at the start
of the war and received temporary promotions to colonel.

Butler briefed Congress on what he described as a business plot for a military coup, for which
he had been suggested as leader; the matter was partially
corroborated, but the real threat has been disputed. There is
little evidence that any serious military coups were planned in the
US. During the American Civil War
those officers who were sympathetic to the Confederacy resigned their
commissions rather than mutiny.

After World War II, there were major
cutbacks, such that units responding early in the Korean War, under
United Nations authority (e.g.,
Task Force Smith) were unprepared,
and resulting in catastrophic performance. It should be noted that
when Harry S.Truman fired Douglas MacArthur, the tradition of
civilian control held and MacArthur left without any hint of
military coup.

Serious permanent buildups were a result of the Cold War. Dwight
D.Eisenhower, a retired
top military commander elected as a civilian President, warned of
the development of a military-industrial complex,
more complex than many traditional ideas of militarism. In the Cold
War, there emerged many civilian academics and industrial
researchers, such as Henry Kissinger
and Herman Kahn, that had significant
input into the use of military force.

It has been argued that the United States has shifted to a state of
neomilitarism since the end of the Vietnam War. This form of
militarism is distinguished by the reliance on a relatively small
number of volunteer fighters; heavy reliance on complex
technologies; and the rationalization and expansion of government
advertising and recruitment programs designed to promote military
service.

The military culture of the Israel Defence Forces has been affected
greatly by the civilian culture. Israeli culture is much less
formal and regimented than most and this has spilled over into the
military, especially since the vast majority of the officers and
soldiers are reservists who bring their civilian background and
behavioural norms into the army when they are mobilized (an example
is the minimum of formality between separate ranks - commanders
often being called by name rather than by rank by their
subordinates, very little saluting except in ceremonies and
such-like). Also the army has been entrusted with many civilian
missions (social work, providing teachers in
areas where they are lacking and so on), and this too has had its
effect on the way army career personnel view the role of the army
and their commitment to civilian society and norms.(see [29066])